If the government found a way to regulate home owner insurance, I'd be paying Allstate about $5,000 a year instead of $750 and they'd be cleaning my gutters, washing my windows and mowing the lawns.
More likely they'd be mandating you to do it and handing out fines to anyone who didn't comply.
That is BY FAR the best analogy every of what federal meddling has done to health care.
The way I look at it, I can't stop other people from ceding control of their body to the feds and to insurance companies. At the very least there should be no mandate. Let people decide for themselves if this is something they want. It should be doable if those who choose not to participate sign a waiver stating that they cannot get any insurance for conditions without a two year (or so) waiting period where they'd have to pay in before they can collect those benefits.
“I will never understand why republicans are resigned to the fact that government needs to control our healthcare decisions.”
Here something that will help you understand.
Rule number one of politics...
“Once you institutionalize a “benefit” you will have hell to pay if you ever try to take it away.”
Actually repealing Obamacare would involve reducing Fedzilla’s power.
The attendants of Fedzilla in Congress will never do that.
They serve Fedzilla, not the citizens.
Hi Baytative. Given the remote possibility that you have not seen the following information concerning Obamacare, you might find it interesting.
The bottom line is that the federal government and the media have outright lied to citizens about the constitutionality of Obamacare imo.
More specifically, lawless Obama's state sovereignty-ignoring activist justices blatantly ignored that previous generations of state sovereignty-respecting justices had clarified that the states have never expressly constitutionally delegated to the feds the specific power to regulate, tax and spend in the name of INTRAstate healthcare.
Regarding the constitutionality of the Obamacare insurance mandate for example, note the fifth entry in the list below from Paul v. Virginia. Regardless what lawless Obama’s state sovereignty-ignoring activist justices wanted everybody to think about the insurance mandate, the excerpt from Paul v. Virginia clarifies that regulating insurance is not within the scope of Congress’s Commerce Clause powers (1.8.3), regardless if the parties negotiating the insurance policy are domiciled in different states.
"Our citizens have wisely formed themselves into one nation as to others and several States as among themselves. To the united nation belong our external and mutual relations; to each State, severally, the care of our persons [emphasis added], our property, our reputation and religious freedom.” —Thomas Jefferson: To Rhode Island Assembly, 1801.
"State inspection laws, health laws, and laws for regulating the internal commerce of a State, and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c. are not within the power granted to Congress [emphasis added].” —Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
"Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States.” —Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
"Inspection laws, quarantine laws, health laws of every description [emphasis added], as well as laws for regulating the internal commerce of a state and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c., are component parts of this mass.” —Justice Barbour, New York v. Miln., 1837.
"4. The issuing of a policy of insurance is not a transaction of commerce within the meaning of the latter of the two clauses, even though the parties be domiciled in different States, but is a simple contract [emphases added] of indemnity against loss.” —Paul v. Virginia, 1869. (The corrupt feds have no Commerce Clause (1.8.3) power to regulate insurance.)
"Direct control of medical practice in the states is obviously [emphases added] beyond the power of Congress.” —Linder v. United States
"From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added]. …” —United States v. Butler, 1936.
In fact, noting that states would first have to amend a healthcare amendment to the Constitution so that the feds would have the constitutonal authority to establish a national healthcare program, consider the following.
Former Speaker Nancy Pelosi wrongly ignored a long-standing resolution to propose a healthcare amendment to the Constitution to the states when she irresponsibly rammed unconstitutional Obamacare through the House.
H.J.Res. 30 (111th): Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States regarding the right of citizens of the United States to health care of equal high quality
So what Obamacare has done is to show how corrupt all three branches of the federal government were, patriots at least winning the Oval Office in the last election.
And speaking of elections …
Drain the swamp! Drain the swamp!
Remember in November ’18 !
Since Trump entered the ’16 presidential race too late for patriots to make sure that there were state sovereignty-respecting candidates on the primary ballots, patriots need make sure that such candidates are on the ’18 primary ballots so that they can be elected to support Trump in draining the unconstitutionally big federal government swamp.
Such a Congress will also be able to finish draining the swamp with respect to getting the remaining state sovereignty-ignoring, activist Supreme Court justices off of the bench.
In fact, if Justice Gorsuch turns out to be a liberal Trojan Horse then we will need 67 patriot senators to remove a House-impeached Gorsuch from office.
Noting that the primaries start in Iowa and New Hampshire in February ‘18, patriots need to challenge candidates for federal office in the following way.
While I Googled the primary information above concerning Iowa and New Hampshire, FReeper iowamark brought to my attention that the February primaries for these states apply only to presidential election years. And after doing some more scratching, since primary dates for most states for 2018 elections probably haven’t been uploaded at this time (March 14, 2017), FReepers will need to find out primary dates from sources and / or websites in their own states.
Patriots need to qualify candidates by asking them why the Founding States made the Constitution’s Section 8 of Article I; to limit (cripple) the federal government’s powers.
Patriots also need to find candidates that are knowledgeable of the Supreme Court's clarifications of the federal government’s limited powers listed above.